To find it utterly chilling that Tory MP Danny Kruger has said that he doesn’t believe women should have absolute right of bodily autonomy?

[AngeloMysterioso]

During a House of Commons debate yesterday Danny Kruger, MP for Devizes said-

“I recognise the degree of distress and concern felt by many members in the house on the supreme courts decision… I probably disagree with most members who’ve spoken so far about this question.

“They think that women have an absolute right to bodily autonomy in this matter, whereas I think that in the case of abortion, that right is qualified by the fact that another body is involved.

“But we can disagree on that question, and I offer to other members who are trying to talk me down, that this is a proper topic for political debate, and my point to the front bench, is I don’t understand why we are lecturing the United States on a judgement to return the power of decision over this political question to the states, to democratic decision makers, rather than leaving it in the hands of the courts.”

(underlining is my own emphasis)

Telegraph - Women do not have ‘absolute right of bodily autonomy’, says Tory MP Danny Kruger

Daily Mail - Prue Leith's religious Tory MP son Danny Kruger says he doesn't agree that 'women have an absolute right to bodily autonomy' in debate over US abortion ban - and British MPs should not 'lecture' US over their democratic process

Evening Standard - “Women ‘don’t have an absolute right to bodily autonomy’, says Tory MP Danny Kruger”

Spectator- “In defence of Danny Kruger”

AIBU to think this is rather terrifying, in light of what’s just taken place in the US and the fact that, with BJ’s Tory leadership hanging in the balance there are rabid pro-lifers like Jacob Rees Mogg ready to take his place?

For now...

I don't understand why anyone would find this shocking, unless you think everyone is pro-choice. Knowing that some people are anti-abortion, and that the main argument is that the woman doesn't have the right to decide what happens to the other life inside her body, automatically means that she wouldn't have unqualified bodily autonomy, it's just a different way of phrasing the same idea. This isn't news. Maybe it's news that this particular MP is pro-life/anti-abortion, but the sentiment he expresses is mainstream within the movement.

And then the law banning pregnant women having a glass of wine.

And fixed penalty notice if she's caught eating chicken liver pâté.

Some women will always cheer handing over their rights. Like good little girls

Genuinely curious as to why you'd be vehemently opposed to something like that?

All pregnancy is the result of the introduction of sperm. Weird how no politician ever wants to regulate men’s bodies.

Isn't it obvious.

Because it would be a law telling a pregnant woman that her body is not her own. And if the law states that her body is not her own, where do you think that will lead?
Clue: To anti-choice factions using that as an in to making abortion illegal.

No idea what @Rosehugger's motivations are, but I would vehemently oppose it because if they introduce a ban against pregnant women doing some things they can introduce a ban against them doing other things. And then expand those bans to women who potentially might be pregnant ...

You're "genuinely curious" as to why anyone would object to criminalising women for not being treated in law as walking incubators and not sentient beings? You're "genuinely curious" as to why it might not be a good idea to give millions of women who have a sip of wine while pregnant or smoke one cigarette at the end of a stressful day a criminal record? Its not even occurred to you that this might be a somewhat disproportionate use of criminal law and the dangers that might result from it?

Pull the other one.

TheScenicWay Your post starting 'Women can still suffer life changing effects from pregnancy & giving birth'

Exactly This.

And the men just get to skip off into the sunset & make comments about our bodies & choices.

I have a thread running about my urine & fecal incontinence caused by giving birth so this is a sore subject for me.

I wrote on another forum during a discussion about not allowing abortion, that some women are left with life changing injuries & my post was completely ignored by all the men who were furiously arguing that we shouldn't have the choice to 'Kill a baby'.

And me 😡

I wish people would stop dragging his mother into it. She’s not responsible for his views. Her having had an abortion is her business. It doesn’t warrant people trying to drag her in and demanding she sort him out. He’s almost 50, for Gods sake. Leave her out of it.

Some women will always cheer handing over their rights. Like good little girls

Quite.

The patriarchy would be nothing without the handmaidens propping it up.

Disgusted and did you hear the gasps when he said it

yes one day will be something small we're banned from doing and will grow from there

Just to help me understand this - is what you are saying is that although we have legal limits on the provision of abortion, we don’t criminalise women for action they may take that impacts the foetus? So, if for instance, a woman took action that killed her late-term foetus, she could not be prosecuted for this (unlike in the US)?

or am I misunderstanding the legal position here?

'I wish people would stop dragging his mother into it. She’s not responsible for his views. Her having had an abortion is her business. It doesn’t warrant people trying to drag her in and demanding she sort him out. He’s almost 50, for Gods sake. Leave her out of it.'

Very well said. She's got nothing to do with this, or with anything he says

This. ^

Is the US Supreme Court a democratic decision maker? They were appointed, not voted in.

It's a horrifying view but I don't see it getting popular traction in the UK. I know most people in the US are also pro-choice, but the 'forced birth' lot are much more mainstream there (through certain churches I guess) than they are here.

But yes, it is gross that men think they have any right to pontificate about it.

AchatAVentre, your post makes no sense. Women who procure an abortion outside of the scope of the Abortion Act 1967 are criminalised. S58 of the Offences Against the Person Act. We have both legally limited bodily autonomy (ie, it's a criminal offence), and practically limited bodily autonomy (ie, there are no clinics offering access to illegal late term abortions, so we couldn't get it even if it was legal).

Eliveonline's post was entirely correct.

@AchatAVendre

Eh Yes? Still genuinely curious

It's not a necessity for a pregnant mother to smoke or drink (heavily) during pregnancy - in fact it's selfish - and the risks are evident and potentially life long to the unborn child.

But sure let's just disregard all that in the face of "poor woman needs a drink and a fag - her body her choice - so unfair that she had to house a baby for 9 months"

Women have a responsibility when they're pregnant whether people like it or not. In the same sense a mother or father has a responsibility to protect a child.

Laws are already in place for that - no smoking in cars, public indoor spaces to eliminate/reduce second hand smoke...so why is this so much more shocking? Laws are already in place for safeguarding children against abuse, neglect, neglect through addiction in the family home.

“They think that women have an absolute right to bodily autonomy in this matter, whereas I think that in the case of abortion, that right is qualified by the fact that another body is involved“

Not seeing anything wrong with the sentence in itself. In the UK there is already a consideration given to the foetus, which is a why you cannot abort a healthy foetus at 39 weeks.

I think it’s right to debate where to draw the lines, how to balance the rights of the two conflicting ‘bodies’ involved.

“They think that women have an absolute right to bodily autonomy in this matter, whereas I think that in the case of abortion, that right is qualified by the fact that another body is involved.

If there is no question over an individual's capacity to make informed decisions then bodily autonomy has to be absolute or it does not exist.

Between conception and delivery a pregnant woman is expecting a baby but they do not actually have a baby. They may be confident of that expectation being met but it is not guaranteed. We must put the rights of the human being who already exists over those of a human being we hope will come to exist.

No one should support the idea of qualified bodily autonomy, it erodes the principle of bodily autonomy for everyone, not just women who are pregnant.

It's not a necessity for a pregnant mother to smoke or drink (heavily) during pregnancy - in fact it's selfish - and the risks are evident and potentially life long to the unborn child

It isn't a necessity for a pregnant woman to leave the house. What if she gets knocked down by a car? Or breathes in car fumes? She can just get shopping delivered the silly selfish girl. As long as she doesn't lift a bag that is deemed too heavy.

In fact, is it necessary for a pregnant woman to go upstairs? What if she falls? Do you realise how many people fall down the stairs? The selfish cow should just live downstairs for 9 months.

Pregnant women are not incubators. Pregnant women have the right to do as the wish with their body, regardless of whether you like it or not. When you start trying to regulate what they can and cannot do, based on your own moral judgements of what is and isn't reasonable, then you start down a slippery slope that we would never get back up.

Totally agree @Imabouttoexplode

I will die on that hill with you sister 💪

We're going to need a bigger hill.